The Daily Briefing

COUNCIL APPROVES PUTTING PARCEL TAX ON NOVEMBER BALLOT

Theo DouglasWed. July 23
 

Giving us one more reason to consider remembering the November election for the rest of our natural lives, Long Beach City Council voted 8-1 last night to put Mayor Bob Foster’s $571 million infrastructure improvement plan on the ballot in about three and a half months.

In other words, it’s now known as the Long Beach Infrastructure Reinvestment Act, according to the Press-Telegram’s Joe Stevens, who calls it “a parcel tax that will cost a single-family residence about $120 per year through 2044, and will be raised periodically in accordance with the cost of living. The tax would repay bonds the city would take out.”

First of all, what’s this about a cost of living increase? That could get ugly. And second, I don’t know about you, but I’ll be 74 years old in 2044–if I’m still alive. This is a far-reaching bond measure, and if voters pass it in November, are we entirely sure where all that money will go?

Fifth District Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske cast that lone dissenting vote, saying she wasn’t entirely satisfied with the measure.

“There are so many questions,” Schipske said, “It would be much better to answer them before our vote and not after the fact.” The P-T, which quoted her, wonders about the Act, too.

“City Manager Pat West’s office presented the far-reaching, 10-year plan, but did not specifically say where all $571 million would go,” Stevens writes. “However, West’s staff did detail that $275 million will go to streets, sidewalks and alleys. Specifically, $185 million will go to streets, $45 million to sidewalks and $45 million to alleys.

“The main argument is that many streets, sidewalks and alleys have been neglected, and the only way that can stop is if the parcel tax passes.”

Okay, so if $275 million is really all that’s been accounted for, would that really leave $296 million lying around loose somewhere in the city’s General Fund?

Uh, yikes! Does that possibility worry any of  us? Assuming the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors signs off on this Act at its Aug. 8 meeting–a mandatory, possibly prefunctory hurdle–we’ll have until November to decide if it does.

And is there maybe–maybe?–any other way we could have kept our streets, sidewalks and alleys in better shape on our own? Yeah, there might have been.

The P-T story has two comments as I write this, and the first is from a writer named Juan Pardell (I’m not certain if he’s the same Juan Pardell who posts here sometimes). But Pardell has this to say about that:

“There would be infrastructure monies in the general fund if: 1) The city government didn’t have to pay millions of dollars in salary & pension increases [and] 2) the city government didn’t have to pay millions of dollars each year subsidizing The Pike & Aquarium.”

You may not agree with that. The next commenter on the P-T story is the stalwart Robert J G Jackson Sr (I’m writing it the way he signs it) and he opens with this:

“Congratulations to the Mayor and the Council for approaching the Special Tax in a straightforward manner, even if it requires a 2/3 vote of the public to pass.”

(Makes it sound like we don’t even need to put this sucker on the ballot. Can we pay more if we want to?) But then Jackson turns on ‘em–sort of:

“It’s the Council’s job to see to it that these things are taken care of each year, rather than letting things go until we have to take this bond measure approach in order to catch up,” he writes.

“Deferred maintenance is a euphemism for previous Councils having chosen to spend the money elsewhere each year. [Remember], efficient, cost-effective government is what is expected.”

Jackson is dead right on that last point, and in this he agrees with Pardell. Writes Pardell:

“The question Long Beach voters should ask themselves is, ‘Do I reward my city government for making bad decisions?’ ” Later, he adds:

“The time has come, for Long Beach residents [and] business owners, to extol fiscal discipline on the city government. It’s quite obvious they won’t do it themselves. Therefore, voters should reject this parcel tax measure, and force city officials to find another way to pay for these items.”

Wow! Let’s hope this debate only gets hotter. Making our city streets look like Ladera Ranch may sound like a good idea–but is this the right way to do it? We have until November to decide.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

RELATED

Viewing 25 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    This is not about rewarding or punishing our gov't. Voting this down doesn't punish gov't. It just makes it so my street and sidewalk look like crap for another 50 years. (Foster, DeLong, etc. had nothing to do with past councils who got us into this position anyway.)

    The facts:
    1. Infrastructure is our gov't top priority next to public safety
    2. Our infrastructure is awful
    3. Waiting to fix our infrastructure will only make fixing it more expensive

    There is no other viable way to fix our infrastructure. I am very conservative. I would support cutting everything in our gov't except public safety and infrastructure. The fact remains even if we did that (never would happen with the liberals on the council and many residents) we would not have enough money to pay for what we need. You can talk about pensions, salary increases and all the other rhetoric. The fact remains this is the only viable way to fix our infrastructure in an acceptable timeframe.

    Passing this bond will improve resident quality of life, increase property values, and bring more quality residents and businesses to our city.

    I support this bond and hope everyone else will help make Long Beach great by passing this bond.
    • ^
    • v
    Post 1 puts it correctly. No one is saying this is great, far from it. But the time has come to address infrastructure, and it will only cost more by waiting. Jackson and Pardell miss the point. This isn't about rewarding anybody. Their view tries to make Foster and friends accountable for a situation they didn't create.
    • ^
    • v
    I'm not missing the point. You're misunderstanding the point. Infrastructure should be addressed on an annual basis. Because of political pandering, monies, which should have been used for infrastructure, went to other elected city officials interests. So, now that there isn't any money for infrastructure improvements, what's the remedy? Oh, a tax increase! Wow! That took an awful lot of thinking. In other words, they decide to punish you for their mistakes. Does that seem fair? Mayor Foster may not be accountable for the past mistakes made by former, and current, city officials. But, his proposals are far from being a reformer. If you believe fixing a few potholes and stormdrains will fix the public's perception of Long Beach, I've got plenty of bridges to sell you.
    • ^
    • v
    Juan, your IP address on the PT indicates you don't live here. Is that accurate? I ask because the existing problems are those that can't really be addressed on an "annual basis". If you live here, it just takes a drive around town to see what the rest of us do. There is so much, it is simply more prudent to lay out a funding scheme that works years into the future. Maybe even fix a few bridges as well.
    • ^
    • v
    Juan, fixing streets and sidewalks, adding stormdrains to clean beaches, and beautify parks and wetlands absolutely will change the perception of Long Beach. You apparently have some history with the politicians of LB. But you don't live here anymore. You have an axe to grind. We have a city that we live in every day to fix. Our quality of life is important. Yes, past councils made mistakes. Yes, a new tax isn't great. Yes, infrastructure should be paid for as you go with current revenue. But we live in the real world. And the reality this bond is the viable option. For many of us who live here we're willing to shell out 10 bucks a month for a city makeover.
    • ^
    • v
    lbresident ---- You've bought into the propaganda. My opinions, are not based on an axe to grind. I've based them upon history and results. Frankly, when you examine the past projects of Long Beach, this bond proposal is not very encouraging. Long Beach city officials, have mastered the art of spreading fear tactics in order to receive support for an agenda. Nothing different is coming out of Mayor Foster's mouth. The reality, is your city government doesn' t know how to live within its means. Do you believe fixing a few streets and sidewalks will open up the business floodgates? What difference will new stormdrains make when the waters in Long Beach still inherit the sewage runoff from the LA rivers?
    You're overstating the impact of those components. Yes, they need to be fixed. However, do it without raising taxes and make it a spending priority. Sorry, but when Mayor Foster gave the same rebore of comparative analysis, in explaining the salary increases, he lost credibility.
    • ^
    • v
    Duke ---- I live in San Francisco but I'm a former Long Beach resident. Please explain to me what it is you do. In the seven years I lived in Long Beach, I saw a plethera of potential destroyed by one bad decision after another. The existing problems of Long Beach shouldn't just be handled on an annual basis, but a daily basis! That's how you achieve results. Something most bureaucracies don't seem to understand.
    • ^
    • v
    Let's see............
    A proposal that, if passed by the voters, will add a debt of $638 million and bond payments by property owners for the next 35 years is given just over two hours of debate prior to passage by an 8-1 majority. Actually, if you deduct the time spent by the Mayor touting what a marvelous new toy this will be and the 41 page PowerPoint presentation, I believe actual public comment and council colloquy lasted for less than one hour. During that time several very cogent points of discussion were raised only to be dismissed by Mr. West saying in effect, "Sorry, but it's too late to make any changes. You will approve this as it is or you won't, but you will tweak it in anyway."
    This is sheer madness!
    Nobody has any idea of the pros and cons of this. Most of the numbers thrown out were guesses at best, and documented lies at worst.
    This is one Long Beacher who will oppose this measure and work hard to convince every voter I know to do the same.
    Let's get it right rather than get it now.
    • ^
    • v
    At first glance, some of our legal team and broad coalition , is suspicious because we are pretty sure lbresident is Marc B...., or one of his small, vocal,
    well connected minority of old guard neo cons that think they run this town, or
    know what is best for all of us. These are the same guys that preached that the Wetlands Home Depot was GREAT !!, This line of reasoning is so familiar to many of this, our antenna are up .

    Many are reviewing this budget and saying...Boy Oh boy are we spending hard dough on buildings for Police and Fire here? How will that attract business? Who is in the bid pool there? We'll see. We have faith, and honest friends inside. I recall when when fire would work on the station with all that spare time, and staff tradesmen would help?

    Thus far, some are quitly asking,'' Can we afford this'', as we flirt with recession, endure 3 years of Real Estate softness, and an official Bear Market in stocks?

    We moderates, and centerists, and Blue Dog Dems, independents and more, can often smell the 'Hawks' spewing with Jay Beeler types, Gordon, and on and on. Are they bullying Bob ? Squeezing him? Is he over a political barrel? We'll see, but guys....you have 1 vote on Council for a reason ? Cut us some slack, please.

    If not our old pal Markey Marc, who's basically a good man inside, lbresident comes off like he has it all figured out, again and again. His little click shares many similar unpopular misconceptions which we have debated for a long time.. If so, it ends up this click often speaks for 4 or 5 percent of the voters, and a dozen or so of the old guard. Sadly, the IPT , or what's left of that dying 'fish wrapper', usually goes along . Gary then does what he often appears to have been kind of hired to do?

    We trust Bob implicitly, and his heartfelt sincerity last night explaining this at Council was moving, but, if this other click is pounding the table, they are probably getting paid somehow. Bob may have not realized it yet.. We need to look at the beneficiaries closely, and we have, and will continue to seek equity.

    For example, on the Wetlands plan alone, is Tom Dean, who they say bought Bixy A, and B, slated to make a killing on a sale of the Wetlands? Is all of the open space planned for the estuary? Bet it ain't ? What about the tank farm parcel where The Design Center failed? (Time to pull the sign guys, we hear the Depot walked)
    Is Dean and crew being bailed out for a problematic tank farm sale to him years ago, from SCE ? This is where Bob promised to recuse himself, while campaigning. If so, he should because he was with Edison when this was sold to Tom, shouldn't he? He will, for he is an honorable man

    And what of the Dean/Berger 'pumpkin patch' nightmare over abandoned, and heavily contaminated City dump # 1, are they being bailed out in this measure ? We need to know so that we may proceed with our eyes open.

    Some of us love this bond issue at a glance, but have questions, and suspicions until further vetting.

    Finally, we are hearing that The failed 'Lennar' deal at 2nd and PCH, has Taki-Sun fronting for a big investor too? Maybe Dean, or Pook? Has anyone else heard about any of this? Any substance?
    • ^
    • v
    good govt 4 all seems to have enjoyed an extended cocktail hour this evening just prior to sitting down to his keyboard.
    • ^
    • v
    Everyone is missing some important points. Does everyone forget that we reduced the utility users tax from 10% down to 5% and this has cost the general fund millions in annual revenue?? All those services that were put in place with that revenue remain even though the budget has been slashed. Then, the Mayor and Council decide to give fire and police big raises and nice contracts, with our support (remember voice your choice), adding further hits to the general fund.

    We finally have a Mayor and a management team that understands with the lower utility user tax, and reduced revenues from ToT and property taxes, that the General Fund budget can only patch things up....never fixing them completely. So what are the alternatives?? Close libraries and no longer offer recreation programs?? Any resident knows that this causes problems with our youth, many that don't have parental guidance. Ask the police and firefighters to contribute more to their outlandish pensions?? Never happen.....heck there are plenty of these guys making well over 100K a year with their overtime and big raises. So where do you get the money from? Other funds have restrictions on them abd can only contribute small percentages to the General Fund.

    Juan offers no solutions...instead he says live within your means. The City has done that now for the past 3 years slashing every department's budget (well, under the City Manager). I am all for people saying they won't support an issue but offer an alternative. Don't talk about old Council and management mistakes when you have a Mayor that has done several things to try and fix many of the problems left by the former Mayor. About the only thing I don't believe he should have done was give police and fire big raises without getting some give backs, especially in the form of pension contributions.
    • ^
    • v
    No solutions? How about selling underperforming city assets (the Queen Mary, Aquarium, etc)? How about reversing the pay raises? How about suspending RDA projects? What about layoffs? There are solutions. The problem is no one wants to make tough decisions. I understand Long Beach isn't alone in this dilemna. Many other cities are suffering similar issues. However, its been poor planning, on the part of the very same people you entrust to manage things properly, that has created these fiscal problems. Most people, in elected office, are not long term thinkers. Frankly, the most courage I've seen came from a few Vallejo city councilmembers, who decided the best option for long term fiscal austerity was to send the municipal government to bankruptcy. It was no longer feasible, to bankroll the city's financial activities on the backs of the taxpayers.
    • ^
    • v
    Dear Dick, they said that about many over the years, including friend and mentor Don May ? Who is still watchful ? He remains concerned about ocean rays, even sting rays, but'' Dick Rays?". Yikes ! Avoid !!

    So you know I haven't had a drink since 1977, you? ( I could use one at times around here ! LOL ) I have been too used to MSFT word xp tho..sorry !

    Also, Marjie and Dukes posts are excellent in my humble opinion. Not speaking for the group here.

    As for the Queen Mary, haven't the shrewd insiders known for decades that the only way to stop the fiscal bleeding on that deal , is to sell it, or haul it away, or sink it half was to Catalina? That has been a loser since day one and many who had to swallow it to keep there job, said so then, and now ?
    • ^
    • v
    Re post 12, what happened to the ' Deaver the Cleavor' of the 70's mentality which first brought us a bright and exceedingly capable young Gerrie Shipske? We saw Departments with over 300, cut to around 70?, then less?

    Sure they "Gutted' police and fire'' say some, , be we lived? Isn't there any belt tightening middleground ?.Many of us grew up in and around old and new City Hall, and we recall the years of 'Cutbacks', vividly? It built character and fostered competition and excellence among those fighting to keep their jobs ?

    Are we immune from capital destruction ? Insulated from the business cycle?
    • ^
    • v
    Margie Diaz makes a very good, relevant point about the utility tax. People were told that cutting would lead to budget issues EXACTLY like the city faces now, but voters were too drunk with the idea of able to cut a tax, any tax. Well, be careful what you wish for people. She's also correct about budgets already being slashed that fall under city manager purview. Many departments are already cut back so much that they have countless people working overtime without compensation, just to get the job done. But, I'm sure, no one wants to hear that.

    Mr. Pardell- There is no propaganda to be bought here. None. One needs to be here on a regular basis to see the situation. I also have no idea why I need to explain to you what I "do", or how that relates to you being in San Francisco. All anyone needs to know is I'm in and out of City Hall on regular basis on many floors. I know some of the players outside of City Hall as well. I live in Long Beach. I didn't vote for Foster, if that matters. But I do know the rationale for the bond measure as he's described it. He'll be surprised if it passes, I believe. He hopes it will. As I've said before, neither he or West can win no matter what they do. Most city departments have no fat to slash anymore. Further cuts will severely affect core services. They'll do them, if that's what it takes to get a balanced budget. But I guarantee more people will be unhappy about the cuts than they will be about this measure if it passes.

    Oh yeah- they'd LOVE to sell the Queen Mary. People keep suggesting this as if it's a no brainer solution, but no one proposes a buyer. It ain't that easy, unless the city wants to entertain offers from other countries, who would then put even MORE residential property near the site. And even those types of buyers aren't growing on trees.
    • ^
    • v
    Read the proposal carefully. In addition to rehabilitating streets and structures, it also calls for NEW structures to be built. I am all for the proposed Public Safety improvements and new structures, but is it essential we build 11 new Community Centers, 20 new rest facilities and 3 new Parks?

    How much would the measure be reduced if these non-essentials were cut from the plan? If the measure were reduced to a more reasonable number, the Mayor might receive more support.

    Also, I am not a big fan of granting any exemptions. Does the City have any idea how many people could claim an exemption? It could be a significant number. There are a lot of elderly homeowners in this city.
    • ^
    • v
    First i think it's fair to say that if the city could take some sort of early poll they would see little to no support for this parcel.

    I for one think it's bogus as well. Sure, our infrastructure is important but just creating a bail out program isn't going to solve much. Chances are that money will be mismanaged or end up going to other programs that jump in front of it the way it seems to have happened in the past. For anyone that has managed a budget you understand that robbing peter to pay paul only lasts for so long. we have bigger issues to deal with that won't be solved by taxing our residents...or should i say home owning residents.

    I hope a theory i read somewhere is true that the mayor probably knows this won't happen anyways but then can say he tried everything he could before really getting brave/creative and rethinking the overall city budget.

    Here's a good question, why are rich areas like the park estates getting a bunch of new sidewalks right now? How the hell does that make sense if so many other parts of the city are in such dire need.

    And how this will help rid our city of its reputation is just a joke. You guys believing that should really get out more. "Wow, this alley is really nice, look how comfortable the homeless look. Gee, this nice new sidewalk really allows me to enjoy all the wonderful graffiti on the walls. Hey gimme back my purse!"

    Screw this tax and the horse it rode in on.
    • ^
    • v
    "I hope a theory i read somewhere is true that the mayor probably knows this won’t happen anyways but then can say he tried everything he could before really getting brave/creative and rethinking the overall city budget."

    The first part of your statement isn't really a theory, it's true. The second part isn't entirely accurate. He and West won't need much creativity to slash and burn the budget. They'll just take a sledgehammer and start whacking.